Does the removal of confederate statues proves that white people may actually have a soul and/or moral sense of conscience?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Hopefully they'll replace them with statues of George Floyd just to piss off the trumptards.

[Asker]

[Anonymous]

Nobody sacrifices more for people who are not of their race than white people.

[Asker]

Could be because whites are the fucking primary cause of suffering towards people who are not of your euro race, Mr. Einstein.

[Opinion Owner]

Poor misguided POC. It is to white people like Einstein and others that you and your parents owe your lives. The world maybe shitty now, but compared to how it was before we changed it, it is paradise. Ever heard of say the Moorish rule over Spain or the Mongol conquest of Europe or the centuries of Ottoman oppression in Eastern Europe or the Barbary pirates, none of them stopped what they did of their own accord, they did not choose to give more rights to Europeans we forced them out, and then we conquered them and forced them to call us masters. We however chose to grant them freedom and all the benefits of our civilization from healthcare to electricity. Now most People of Color choose to forget that. The only time you have been nice as a group to us is when we have you at our mercy.

[Asker]

You know you're right, so let me give you euros your praise, thanks for bringing your sickly, filthy diseases to America, thanks for global fucking warming, thanks for creating a well-thought-out system that has polluted the shit out of our oceans, air & planet, thanks for deforestation that's the cause of thousands of endangered species, thanks for your ongoing wars for profit, thanks for your GMO, pesticides and other cancerous diseases in our foods, thanks for your constant nagging & bitching about every little fucking thing that you cave dwelling, pale breed of the most annoying of all species of all humankind have created! Your praise of being pure, 100% white trash has been well overdue.

[Opinion Owner]

You have no idea just how many lives those things have saved. Native American descendants thrive in the form of Hispanics, when before most of them were living in utter squalor, if you think that you don't need us white people start living like them, Global warming really hasn't had that many bad effects so far in fact plant life has increased it is called global greening and the transportation technology has saved numerous lives through its economic benefits not to mention keeping people warm in the winter. GMO's have saved billions from starvation, all claims that organic food is better is nothing more than a fairytale, and as for forests and species most species today are already extinct. Heck the native Americans killed all the horses in the Americas, they stood in the way of human progress. Now who is ready to apologize to me and all other white people? Come come now you have been a very rude young lady.

[Asker]

You're a fucking Maggot, dude!
You're so full of your own shit, you'd gladly defecate on a plate, eat it, & declare, it's prime fucking steak!
Stay off my posts, colonizer.

[Wade8888]

The Bible, written by Jews, says not to remove the monuments created by your elders.

When are Africans going to admit that the first generation slaves were convicted murderers and rapists sold by Africans to Europeans and Americans for a barrel of Rum? If the Law of God had been obeyed to the letter, all of these people should have been EXECUTED for their crimes. Instead, they were spared and allowed to live as slaves.

If you hate white people so much, here's a clue: Move back to Africa, where your sorry, reverse discriminatory ass came from.

I get sick of being demonized by black people even though it's the blacks that commit literally (God is my witness) 90% of all violent crimes in the nation, according to real world crime statistics.

WE COULD ALL DO OURSELVES A FAVOR BY BUYING AN AIRPLANE TICKET FOR LAZY ASS, WELFARE LEACHING BLACK PERSON TO MOVE BACK TO AFRICA. THE CRIME RATE WOULD GO DOWN BY 90% AND THE LITERACY RATE WOULD MORE THAN DOUBLE.

[Asker]

Excellent point, my Euro-American Colonizing Immigrant, but there's only one hitch to your insightful thought, "there's an overwhelming Klan of white trash, shit-heads like you in Africa too, ya Fox News watching, bleach drinking, piece of shit-tard!!! White racists are "every fucking where", white people are like 100% pure fungus!
https://youtu.be/wAYGwb6PA-Y

[grega239]

No. It proves what sensitive butches those who want them removed are.
And how unbearably smooth their brains are. Because all they see is that some of the statues are of people who were racist DURING A TIME WHEN EVERYONE WAS.

Like imagine if i started running around my country , removing and destroying monuments of the white guard (the white guard aka home guard aka the whites were nazi collaborators in my homeland. They were traitors).

Yes it pisses me off to no end but i have to accept that ugly part of my history

[Anonymous]

No, I think it proves that society and people - regardless of race - are starting to realize the lies they've been raised with.

There is no moral redemption in this. Just righting past wrongs. No positive, no negative. Just progress.

It is, however, revealing a lot of alt-right and subconscioisly white supremacist people.

Frankly, I'd rather they replace statues with gardens or more green spaces. We need all the green we can get, gardens are prettier, and they help the local environment with bees and other pollinators.

Plus who would get mad at a buncha flowers? It's a neutral thing.

[jshm2]

No. It means they're clearing way for some more statues to people who committed crimes against others, for country. Probably against the Chinese this time.

[SnakeBoop]

Nah, denying history and talking points for learning to come with extremists isn't showing anything but the lack of backbone.

[Silas_153]

I can understand why you decided to post this question anonymously, because it's such a hateful, disgusting and racist question to ask.

[Anonymous]

What a racist question - you seem to forget who freed the slaves. It wasn't the slaves and it wasn't any African nation either.

[grega239]

Or who came up with human rights

[devilman666]

Nope, it was the hatred/rivalry between the north and south parts of the country lmfao. Abraham Lincoln wasn't planning on freeing the slaves until the civil war started, and even then it was more of a measure of keeping Europe out of the war, rather than a moral decision. However, Abe was a northerner and the south hated and feared him, so when he won they declared independence, and kinda hoped he'd just let them go without any fighting. The civil war started in 1861 and the emancipation proclamation was in 1863, so 2 years of civil war before the north decided to free the slaves, freeing the slaves was never the original goal. Tbh the emancipation was just a coincidence, a stroke of good luck that happened during a terrible time, it wasn't white people being moral.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would build a statue to celebrate a traitor/rebel/terrorist like that, they went to war with their own country because they didn't like the person who was elected

[devilman666]

@grega239 the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians.

[grega239]

@devilman666 i somehow doubt that.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Cyrus the great of Persia wrote the first human rights declaration.

"Nope, it was the hatred/rivalry between the north and south parts of the country lmfao."

That hatred was over slavery.

"Abraham Lincoln wasn't planning on freeing the slaves until the civil war started,"

He wasn't an abolitionist until after the war started BUT the anti-slavery didn't necessarily mean abolitionist. Abolitionists wanted to do away with slavery immediately while many others wanted to see slavery ended by a phasing out process.

"The civil war started in 1861 and the emancipation proclamation was in 1863, so 2 years of civil war before the north decided to free the slaves," In the initial phase of the Civil War, the strategy was conciliatory warfare. Union Generals thought (erroneously) that most of the white lower class of the South had strong Union sympathies and they didn't want to alienate them by ending slavery. But then the South started winning and kept winning so the North went with Shermans' strategy of total war and showed their true colors with the signing of the emancipation proclamation.

[devilman666]

@grega239 according to wikipedia: "Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected in municipal and international law.".
So Ancient Egyptian laws had human rights, it even viewed men an women as equal, admittedly they had slavery but so did America in the 1800s lmao.

[devilman666]

@as_Quid_Orator bullshit, the Egyptians and Babylonians both had their own human rights laws long before Cyrus was born.

Britannica:
"Although masculine primogeniture dominated in some periods of Egyptian history, there are records of property being divided equally among the children, male and female. Even with masculine primogeniture, the other children and the surviving spouse usually received a share of the estate. The usual law of succession could be circumvented by a special enregistered document: a parent, for example, could favour a daughter by guaranteeing her rights over the family property. Legal judgments pertaining to the family and rights of succession clearly demonstrate that women as well as men were granted full rights under the laws of ancient Egypt. Women owned and bequeathed property, filed lawsuits, and bore witness in court proceedings without the authority of their father or husband. The working class also had some legal rights; even slaves were allowed to own property under certain circumstances.

Property transfers and contractual agreements were conducted as if they were the same type of legal transaction. Rental of slaves, for example, was regarded as a sales agreement. Work was often bartered for various commodities. The individual parties were allowed to determine restrictions and guarantees in their transaction concerning possible defects in the property or service as well as defects in the law."

[devilman666]

Regardless, Abe didn't want abolition until after the war, so the hatred really wasn't about slaves, the slaves thing was just one aspect.

So if you guys ever try to make homosexuality illegal again, should we go to war over that? Lmao you are defending traitors who wanted to take rights and freedoms away from people. How can you defend going to war over giving human beings rights, but also defend the declaration of independence and the rights of man? It's one way or the other, either all humans have rights or none do, there is no room for this hypocritical double standard bullshit of only giving rights to people who agree with you, otherwise it'll go back and forth, whenever we have a democrat president republicans won't have any rights, and when we have a republican president, democrats won't have any rights. Either all humans have rights or none do.

[devilman666]

Also, the emancipation proclamation was quite specifically to keep Europe from getting involved, the north had cut off trade routes from the south to Europe in an attempt to destroy their economy so the south would surrender, 2 years of this resulted in Europe getting quite pissed off about a lack of cotton and their economies suffering, so they were prepared to join the south, the righteous action of freeing the slaves meant that Europe couldn't get involved without looking really bad to the rest of the world, as France and Britain had already freed their own slaves so after the proclamation, they couldn't join the south without looking like hypocrites.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@devilman666 We're talking human rights, not property rights and as I explained to you, anti slavery isn't the same as abolitionist. He was against slavery since he got into politics (and arguably before that) even if it wasn't until the war that he took the hardest line he could over it. And slavery is a far more egregious practice than fining people for practicing homosexuality and thus would be more divisive. The animosity between the North and the South was over slavery and the Emancipation proclamation wasn't passed as soon as it was due to an erroneously perceived military necessity for conciliatory warfare. And what traitors am I defending?

[devilman666]

Human rights: a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

"Men and women had the right to own and sell property, create contracts, get married and divorce, collect inheritance, and pursue legal arguments in court.", again, admittedly they had slaves so this didn't apply to all people, but by that metric the USA didn't have human rights until the emancipation proclamation.